Tag: Luke 2:33

Spiritual Deception in the Highest 2.3.2

What else is supposedly wrong in the Amplified? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

It’s definitely a labor of love going through King James Onlyism. As always, the original source can be found here. Right now, we are looking at the KJV compared to the Amplified.

Matt. 18:11

KJV: “For the Son of Man IS come to save that which was lost.”

AMP: “For the Son of man came to save (from the penalty of eternal death) that which was lost.”

Comment: The AMP says Jesus Christ “came” to save that which was lost; a PAST TENSE statement. The AMP implies that ALL who were to be saved, HAVE BEEN saved. Not true. Anyone, TODAY, can be saved by Jesus Christ. The correct reading is PRESENT TENSE. This AMP corruption is very subtle but very important.

Unfortunately for Johnson, this is false. The Greek word here is ηλθεν. Anyone is welcome to look it up even in Blue Letter Bible and you will find it is in the aorist tense, which refers to the past. Hint Johnson. You don’t determine the tense of a word by just looking at what you think it should be. You look at it by studying the word itself.

Also, I really don’t see the Amplified implying this at all. Johnson wants it to say this. This is just a failure of the principle of charity when reading a text you disagree with.

Mark 1:2

KJV: “As it is written IN THE PROPHETS, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.”

AMP: “Just as it is written in the prophet Isaiah: Behold, I send My messenger before Your face, who will make ready Your way;”

Comment: Sometimes verses in the New Testament requote the Old Testament. This is happening here. The verse being quoted is not in Isaiah, as the AMP says, it is from Malachi 3:1. Check it out! Not only does the AMP misquote the Word of God, it even mis-quotes itself. The KJV has the correct reading: “As it is written in the prophets …”, because Malachi was a prophet!

Verbatim what was said before. See my response here.

Luke 2:33

KJV: “And JOSEPH and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.”

AMP: “And His [legal] father and [His] mother were marvelling at what was said about Him;”

Comment: This is blasphemy! Contrary to what the AMP would say, Joseph WAS NOT Jesus’ father! God WAS Jesus’ father! Every Christian knows this! And contrary to the AMP, God was also Jesus’ LEGAL father. Think about what the AMP is saying: If Jesus’ had an earthly father, then He is just any man. If He is just any man, then we are still in our sins. If we are still in our sins, then we are not saved. If we are not saved, then we have a BIG PROBLEM.

Same thing again. See here.

John 3:13

KJV: “And NO MAN hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.”

AMP: “And yet no one has ever gone up to heaven; but there is One Who has come down from heaven, the Son of man [Himself], Who is – dwells, Whose home is – in heaven.”

Comment: Not true AMP. There HAVE BEEN others who have gone up to heaven. Remember the angels of Jacob’s ladder? They were ascending and descending. The KJV has the correct reading which is: “… NO MAN hath ascended up to heaven …”

Johnson repeating himself again. See here.

Acts 12:4

KJV: “… after Easter …”

AMP: “… after the Passover …”

See here.

Acts 17:22

KJV: “Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars’ hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are TOO SUPERSTITIOUS.”

AMP: “So Paul, standing in the center of the Areopagus [Mars Hill auditorium] said: Men of Athens, I perceive in every way – on every hand and with every turn I make – that you are most religious …”

Comment: Come on! Being “most religious” and “TOO SUPERSTITIOUS” are entirely different!

At least he makes my job very easy when he keeps repeating the same claims. See here.

1 Cor. 5:7b

KJV: “For even Christ our passover is sacrificed FOR US:”

AMP: “… for Christ, our Passover [Lamb], has been sacrificed.”

COMMENT: Leaving out “FOR US” misses the point entirely.

See here.

1 Cor. 16:22

KJV: “If any man love not the Lord JESUS CHRIST, let him be Anathema Maranatha.”

AMP: “If any one does not love the Lord … he shall be accursed … ”

COMMENT: Leaving out “JESUS CHRIST” leaves us guessing as to whom the AMP wants us to love.

And here.

2 Cor. 2:17

KJV: “For we are not as many, which CORRUPT the Word of God …”

AMP: “For we are not, like so many … peddling God’s Word …”

COMMENT: Peddling and corrupting are very different. ‘Modern’ bibles try and hide from the truth that they are ‘corrupting’ the Word of God.

See here.

Gal. 2:20

KJV: “I AM crucified with Christ …”

AMP: “I have been crucified with Christ …”

COMMENT: The AMP says their crucifixion is over! Not true. The believers crucifixion is an ongoing, PRESENT TENSE, transaction.

Same as above.

Eph. 5:1

KJV: “Therefore be FOLLOWERS of God …”

AMP: “Therefore be imitators of God …”

Comment: The AMP documents Satan’s position exactly. ONLY Satan tries to IMITATE God as Satan wants to be worshipped AS God. Born again believers cannot imitate God. We can’t rule the universe. We can only follow God. Remember Jesus DID NOT tell his “fishers of men” to imitate Him. Jesus said: “follow me …”.

Again.

Philipians 3:8

KJV: “… and do count them but DUNG, that I may win Christ,”

AMP: “… and consider it all to be mere rubbish …”

See here.

1 Tim. 3:16

KJV: “… God was MANIFEST in the flesh …”

AMP: “… He (God) was made visible in human flesh …”

COMMENT: God wasn’t just made visible, He was MANIFEST in the flesh. The image of the beast, in Revelation, is going to be made visible!

So at least we have something different this time. The terms however are pretty much identical in the original languages. The word lists definitions of both manifest and made visible.

1 Tim. 6:10

KJV: “For the love of money is THE root of all evil …”

AMP: “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil …”

COMMENT: There is a big difference between AMP’s “a” root and the correct KJV reading of “THE” root.

See here.

1 Tim. 6:20

KJV: “… oppositions of SCIENCE falsely so called”

AMP: “… contradictions in what is falsely called knowledge”

Same.

1 Peter 2:2

KJV: “As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk OF THE WORD, that ye may grow thereby:”

AMP: “Like new born babes … desire – the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may … grow unto [completed] salvation.”

COMMENT: The AMP leaves out “OF THE WORD“. It’s God’s Word that makes us grow. Also, unlike what the AMP says, we DO NOT grow to “[completed] salvation”. That says salvation is by works! That is heresy. Remember: “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” (Ephesians 2: 8-9).

See here.

Ultimately, part of the problem here is Johnson just repeats himself over and over again. How much research did he really do? Likely very little if any.

We will continue next time.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

 

 

Response to Spiritual Deception in the Highest Part 2

Do we have more corrupted verses? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

So as we continue our look at KJV-onlyism, we’re responding to this work. I plan to respond to more than one question today. First, let’s start with one that deals with the virgin birth, which I do affirm.

The answer, of course, is that God was Jesus’ father. Let’s look in a ‘modern’ version of the Bible, at Luke 2:33.

Starting in Luke 2:27 Simeon has gone into the temple to see the baby Jesus (who is with Joseph and Mary). Again, depending on the particular ‘modern’ version, in verse 33, it will say something similar to:

” … and his FATHER and mother were amazed at the things which were spoken of him” [i.e. of Jesus].

What do you mean “… and his father …” was amazed at the things which were spoken of him?! Jesus’ father was NOT Joseph! Jesus’ father was God!

Now, let’s look in the Authorized King James Bible. The KJV has the correct reading; in Luke 2:33 it says:

“And JOSEPH and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him“.

For a ‘modern’ version ( NIV, NASV, RSV etc.) to say Joseph was Jesus’ father is blasphemy! Think about the doctrinal implications: If Jesus had only an earthly father and mother, then he is just any man. If he is just any man, then we are still in our sins. If we are still in our sins, then we are not saved! If we are not saved, then we have a big problem!

Here! Here! Indeed! How can we indicate in any way that Joseph is the father of Jesus?! Of course, God is His Father! Absolutely! To the flames then with any translation, or should I say transgression, that says that Joseph is the Father of Jesus!

Oh wait…..

Look at Luke 2:48.

And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.

And that is in the KJV!

How dare they! Surely Mary who had the virgin birth, which I do affirm, would know who the father of Jesus is! How dare she not say Joseph! That would mean Jesus is just an ordinary man and we are still in our sins! We have a big problem!

How dare the KJV deny the virgin birth! (Which I do affirm)

Now let’s go to a common type of objection.

Turn to Matthew 18:11. You may have a hard time finding this verse. In many new, ‘modern’, versions this verse is missing! The verses are numbered 10 then 12, 13, 14! Or you may find verse 11 is in brackets, casting doubt as to whether it is scriptural.

Let’s see what the Authorized King James says:

“For the Son of man is come TO SAVE THAT WHICH WAS LOST.”

This one verse, which summarizes Jesus’ entire mission to earth, is either ignored in ‘new’ versions; or it is put in brackets casting doubt on it! This verse contains a KEY piece of Christian doctrine.

People have to know they are lost, i.e. that they have a problem, to know they need a saviour.

This is a common problem with KJV-Onlyists. They look at the KJV as the perfect and then if there is any difference between the KJV and a modern translation, well the problem is the modern translation because they removed that verse. How do we know the verse was in the original? Because it’s in the KJV and that’s the perfect version!

Never mind that this passage is paralleled in Luke 19:10 which does have the Son of Man coming to seek and to save that which was lost. If this was a conspiracy of some sort, you would think that one would also be removed. So why would this not be in a manuscript?

Odds are that many a scribe could copy from memory, perhaps from hearing a verse read in the worship service, and when he copies Matthew, he automatically fills in that part. Another possibility is sometimes sidenotes would be written and this could be one and sometimes that would be included in later copies. How do we know what the original most likely said? Because we have enough copies that we can cross-reference them. If you want a good reference book on textual criticism, I recommend this one.

Thus far, two questions answered. Nothing convincing. Just shoddy research on the part of KJV-Onlyists.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)